


I bi — - 



LETTERS 



ON THE 



TRUE RELATIONS 



OF 



CHUKCH AND STATE 



TO 



SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES. 



-~^///»r^< 8< 



PRINCETON : 

P E I N T E D BY JOHN T . BOB1N80* 
1853. 



LETTERS 



'f 



ON THE 



TRUE RELATIONS 



OF 



CHURCH AND STATE 



TO 



SCHOOLS AKD COLLEGES. 



k » -^g~- % <r+s/-f~. 



PRINCETON : 

PRINTED JJY JOHN T. ROBINSON. 
1853. 



LQ&9 
<Z.f. 



40069 



LETTERS. 



o 



^ [The following letters are re-printed, in order that they 
£ may be sent to various persons who have not had an oppor- 
tunity to see them. It is believed, that the questions dis- 
cussed are of great moment to the interests of both religion 
■ and learning : — and that they merit the attention of all, and 
> especially of those who have any thing to do with the direc- 
tion of our literary institutions. 

The first two letters were published in the Presbyterian 
^ Advocate of Pittsburgh, and all of them in the Presbyterian 
Banner of Philadelphia.] 



DR. BROWN TO DR. MACLEAN. 

Canoxsburgh, Dec. 7th, 1852. 

Rey. and Dear Sir. — I take the liberty of writing 
to you for the purpose of ascertaining your views in 
relation to the new policy which is coming to prevail 
extensively in our Church, with regard to education 
and educational institutions. 

Were the advocates of Synodical colleges aiming to 
plant these institutions in those places only where no 
others worthy of confidence exist, there would be no 
cause for complaint. But since they seem bent on 
carrying out their favorite scheme everywhere — even 
in the vicinity of colleges that have always enjoyed 
the confidence and favor of the Presbyterian church, 
and which are under the direction of Presbyterians — 



and since these institutions must be placed in a false 
position, and be robbed of many of those important 
advantages which they had earned by long years of 
faithful and zealous devotion to the cause of Christian 
education, it becomes a serious question, what are 
these institutions to do in these new and embarrassing 
circumstances ? 

It seems rather hard that the church for which 
they have done so much, should array her authority 
and influence against them. 

We are determined, "however, at all risks, to stand 
fast in the liberty which we have heretofore enjoyed. 
We would, at the same time, be greatly pleased to 
have the countenance and encouragement of other 
colleges similarly situated, and especially Princeton. 

I shall venture, moreover, to suggest whether this 
evil was not brought upon us by an influence emanat- 
ing originally from Princeton, and if so, whether a 
counter influence should not now be put forth there, 
for the purpose of arresting, if possible, the mischief ? 
Our church has already been saddled with a number 
of sickly institutions that had no special claims either 
upon the church or the public, and which are likely 
to prove a heavy encumbrance, without contributing 
in return any substantial benefit. 

Should you find it convenient, and deem it worth 
while to drop me a line expressive of your views and 
purposes in relation to this subject, you will greatly 
oblige. 

Yours with great respect, 

A. B. BROWN. 

Rev. John Maclean, D. D. 



DR. MACLEAN'S REPLY. 

College of New Jersey, 

Princeton, Dec. 11///, 1852. 

My Dear Sir : — I have received your favour of the 
7th instant ; and in a few words 1 will give you 
my views in regard to the subject to which it re- 
lates, though I am fully aware that they are very 
imperfect. 

Were the erection of colleges within the limits of 
our church a perfectly novel enterprise, I might have 
some doubts as to the best mode of founding and car- 
rying on such institutions ; but with all the light I 
have been able to obtain on this subject, I am decid- 
edly of the opinion, that where colleges can be success- 
fully established upon the plan of Jefferson, and of 
the one here, it is unwise to place them upon any 
other foundation. . 

What are the simple facts in regard to both the in- 
stitutions named ? 

1st, They are perfectly exempt from any interfer- 
ence from the State authoritiesfso long as they continue 
to act within the limits prescribed to them in their 
respective charters. 

2d, They are in the hands and subject to the con- 
trol of Presbyterian ministers and laymen, as wise, 
and as judicious as any that could be selected by our 
church courts, — not to say better than most of our 
Synods could furnish. And these ministers and lay- 
men are as much devoted to the interests of the Pres- 
byterian Church, as any men could be. 

3d, Sound religious instruction, according to our 



6 

doctrinal standards, is given in them, and as much 
probably as is given in any college in the country. 
There is no attempt to proselyte the youth who be- 
long to other denominations ; but as regards matters 
of faith and practice, the teaching is as full and as 
free as could be found in any college in the land. Not 
only are the doctrines of the Bible taught in them, 
but the Bible itself is a text book and a subject of 
study. Natural Theology, the Evidences of Christi- 
anity, and the Greek Testament, furnish matters of 
weekly recitation and instruction. Meetings for 
prayer, and for the reading and expounding of the 
Scriptures, are as frequent as in any institutions under 
ecclesiastical control. 

4th, There has never been a time in the history of 
these two colleges, when their friends entertained any 
apprehension that they would be perverted from their 
original design, or taken from under their control. 
During the late struggles in the Presbyterian Church, 
which institution was regarded as being in the greatest 
danger, by the now strenuous advocates for colleges 
under direct ecclesiastical supervision — the college or 
the seminary in this place ? The one under the care 
of the General Assemblv, the other under the clirec- 
tion of a permanent Board of Trustees, who by their 
charter are authorized to fill all vacancies occurring 
in their body, with but one exception — the Governor 
of the State being ex-officio President of the Board. 

5th, Indirectly, our church courts have a supervision 
of our two colleges. Reports are made to our Pres- 
byteries and Synods, not indeed formally by our Trus- 
tees ; but by some of the officers of the colleges, who 
are members of Synod or Presbytery : and more or 



less notice of the condition of the colleges is always 
taken by these church courts, in their narratives of 
the state of religion within their bounds. Should our 
institutions cease to merit the confidence of the 
churches, our ecclesiastical courts would have it in 
their power to correct any abuses by simply calling the 
attention of the college authorities to them, and by 
adding, if necessary, a declaration, that if the abuses 
should not be promptly corrected, they Will withhold 
their expression of confidence in the management of 
the institutions. Our colleges have no such comma 1 id 
of funds as would enable them to live, if once deprived 
of the countenance of our churches and church courts. 

Cth, It is a fact not to be denied, that our two in- 
stitutions have done more for the best interests of the 
Presbyterian Church than any other two colleges in 
the land ; and they have a just right to expect that 
in their efforts to promote the cause of Christian edu- 
cation, our Synods and Presbyteries shall do nothing, 
and take no steps that will impair the good name or 
usefulness of institutions which have rendered them 
so great service. 

In view of the above mentioned facts, I cannot see 
that it is for the interest of the church or the college 
that the latter should be placed under the direct con- 
trol of the former. There is not a benefit to be de- 
rived from a college directly under the government of 
a Synod or Presbytery, that may not be as readily 
obtained from one upon the plan of the colleges at 
Canonsburgh and Princeton. But there are evils very 
likely to result from the direct ecclesiastical rn- 

ment of colleges which cannot exist in the case of 
colleges on the other plan. J speak here of evils to 



8 

the church itself. The more important an institu- 
tion becomes, and the more numerous its endowments 
and professorships, the greater will be the tendency 
to form parties, and to lay plans for securing to their 
respective adherents the more valuable posts. Such 
divisions and such scheming cannot fail to produce 
jealousy and distrust among the members. Hard 
thoughts and hard speeches will be very apt to follow 
the disappointments which must be experienced by 
one party or another. 

So long as the institution is in a feeble condition, 
the post of Trustee or of a Professor may be regarded 
as a matter of little moment, and may be but little 
sought after ; but let either of them' become a post of 
honour, influence, or profit, and there will be no little 
contention as to the selection to be made. 

The less Synods have to do directly with any other 
matters than those which relate to the government 
of the church and the proper guarding of its doctrinal 
instruction, the better for the welfare of the church. 
By confining themselves as much as possible to what 
is their more appropriate work, the better will they 
consult their harmony and usefulness. 

Neither is it for the good of such colleges as can 
sustain themselves, to be altogether under the control 
of our church courts. Under the direction of a self- 
perpetuating body of wise and efficient Trustees, there 
is a far greater security for a full and fair trial of any 
system of instruction and government which may be 
adopted by our colleges, than there can be in one 
under the care of a Synod. Who does not know that 
the complexion of our Synods and other church courts 
is continually changing? New ministers and new 





elders are to be seen 1 at almost every meeting; and! 
the larger the body and the more numerous the 
Changes, the greater the probability that diversity of" 
views will exist both in regard tothe manner in which 
our colleges should be conducted, and also with respect 
to the fitness of the persons connected with them for 
their respective stations. In such a body of men let 
there be but one man, conscientious it may be, but 
burdened with a sense of his own wisdom, having 
little or no respect for the opinions of others — wrong- 
headed, fault finding, but possessed of talent and 
learning sufficient to command the attention of some 
of his brethren — who can estimate the amount of an- 
noyance such an individual would be capable of giving 
the authorities of the college, whenever its affairs 
were under the consideration of the Synod or other 
church court ? In a small body of Trustees, elected 
for life, such a ma% if unhappily through some mis- 
take he should be admitted into their number, could 
do comparatively but little harm. Their deliberations 
are in private, and his fault-finding will be very like- 
ly to go for what it is worth and no more. But in a 
Synod, without making any direct charge, which 
could be as directly met and answered, he might by 
insinuation, by the expression of a doubt, by proposing 
an inquiry into some matter connected with the disci- 
pline or instruction, as if there was something requir- 
ing exposure and correction— make a serious thrust 
at the institution itself, or at those more immediately 
concerned in its government. In a Synod, everybody 
has a right to express an opinion ; and because they 
have the right, there are commonly not a few who 
seem to think that they must be continually exerci- 



10 

ing it, no matter what the subject may be ; and they 
are as reacty to give their judgment upon the proper 
management of a college as upon any other topic. 

If it can be done lawfully and in good faith to their 
founders and patrons, it may be well enough for col- 
leges that cannot exist without it, to seek the aid of 
some Synod, by the surrender of its government. But 
I do not believe it to be wise for the Synods to permit 
such parasitical plants to cling to them for support, 
when that support must be given to them at the ex- 
pense of others of really greater value to the church 
at large — not to speak of the injury to the Synods 
themselves. 

Whether it is wiser for the friends of our institu- 
tions to remain quiet and wait the result of the pre- 
sent experiment, or to give their views on this subject 
to the church, I am somewhat in doubt. Their mo- 
tives might be misapprehended and misrepresented. 
Yet they have an undoubted right, and perhaps it is 
their duty, to endeavor to form a more correct public 
sentiment. If it be deemed best to take any public 
stand in regard to this matter, I will cheerfully render 
any service in my power. 

You seem to think that the Repertory is in no small 
degree responsible for the views which we combat ; 
but I am not aware that the Repertory has advocated 
any such course as the one to which you object. The 
discussions in that work had respect to church schools 
as contrasted with State schools, from which to a 
great degree religious instruction must needs be ex- 
cluded lest the rights of conscience be invaded. But 
these discussions had no bearing, at least they were 
not designed to have, upon the question, whether we 



11 

must give up Presbyterian colleges, not nominally but 
really Presbyterian, for institutions of like kind under 
tlie care and control of Synods and Presbyteries. 
And some of the warmest friends of this latter class 
of colleges have not had the remotest thought of in- 
juring those on the plan of the colleges at Canons- 
burgh and Princeton. I do not know that we have 
a warmer friend of the college in this place than the 
Ilev. Secretary of the Board of Education ; but it is 
possible that even he may not have perceived the 
whole bearing of this question upon the lasting in- 
terests of the church : especially if certain doctrines 
broached in the Presbyterian some time ago are to be 
received as true, viz : that such colleges as Jefferson 
have no right to call upon their old friends for such aid 
as they may need to carry on their enlarged plan of 
instruction, if these friends should happen to reside 
within the limits of a Synod which has taken another 
college under its special charge — at least until this 
favored institution has had time to accomplish its own 
plans, and to cripple other institutions of greater 
value. 

Thus, with many interruptions since I began my 
letter, and at greater length than I intended when I 
began to write, have I endeavored to give you my 
views on this important question ; and I shall be glad 
if anything I have written shall be deemed by you 
of sufficient importance to merit from you a second 
thought. 

Most respectfully yours, 

JOHN MACLEAN. 



12 

T S. — In some remarks in the latter part of the 
ibove letter, you will perceive that I have referred to 
the difficulty between the authorities of Jefferson and 
Lafayette Colleges, in regard to the collection of funds 
for Jefferson within the bounds of the Synod of Phil- 
adelphia. In that matter, I think Jefferson was right 
and Lafayette wrong : still I do not wish you to sup- 
pose that I entertain any unkind feelings toward La- 
fayette, or have any apprehension that the revival of 
that college will be of serious detriment to Princeton. 
During the administrations of Presidents Junkin and 
Yeomans, that institution did great service to the 
church, and I hope will continue to do so. I could 
wish, indeed, that it had been resuscitated upon its 
original plan. In this case it might have struggled 
harder for a time, but ultimately I think it would 
have acquired greater vigour, and become a greater 
blessing to the church. That under the administra- 
tion of its present able and efficient head, and its truly 
valuable and learned professors, it may prosper above 
the hopes of its best friends, and be a treasure to the 
Church of Christ, is my fervent wish and sincere 
.prayer. 

I might have said above, and perhaps ought to have 
done so, that our college was really founded by the 
Presbyterian Church in this country, and was from 
the beginning under the fostering care of the Synod 
of New York, which at the time comprised nearly all 
the Presbyterian churches, in New Jersey, as well as 
those in New York. But the Synod very wisely 
sought to place its government and control upon its 
present footing, and not to keep it in their own hands. 



n 



Mr. Editor-: — With your permission, I will avail 
myself, once more, of the -columns of the Banner, to 
discuss the true relation of the church, and also that 
of the State, to our Schools and Colleges. That this 
may he done to the greater advantage, I will mention 
several points, which I regard as worthy of note, in 
coming to a final decision of this question. And 
these points are the following : 

1* It is the duty of the Church to make provision 
for the religious training of all the youth within her 
pale. 

This proposition will be readily granted by all with 
whom I now have any concern. 

2. It is the duty of the State to make provision of 
some kind, for the civil training of all the youth under 
her care. 

This I presume will be granted. 

3. In order to attain her high aim, the Church must 
unite the culture of the intellect with her religious 
teaching : and the State cannot discharge her duty, 
unless she provides for the right improvement of both 
heart and head. 

Without intelligence as well as piety, youth can 
never become members of great value to the Church ; 
and without a sense of moral obligation, they can 
never become valuable members of civil society. The 
church wants something more than mere babes in 
piety, and the State cannot hold together, if among 
the people there be no sense of religion, — and of per- 
sonal responsibility to God. From this it appears that 
in this matter of education, the Church and State, to 



14 

some extent, occupy common ground, and that no 
line can be drawn, which shall exactly ^p. irate the 
province of the one from thai of \]\ other. 

FTeirce. weal or. lis;'! all e< lion, whether 

by State' or Churd or less of 

the religious element. 

4. If the civil and religious training can be com- 
bined, without detriment to either, it would be wise 
to unite them. 

We can readily conceive of a case, in which there 
shall be such a uniformity of sentiment, as to civil 
and religious matters both, that a system of instruc- 
tion conducted either by the Church or State, would 
lead to the name result. The people connected with 
3 having at heart (lie highest spiritual welfare 
f 11 as the tempo od of their children, would 

it, whether acting by the authority of the State, 
a( ice of the Church, that the instruction 
:o. all r<jfc^ec il'Aii kind and properly 

given. 

And we know it to be a fact, that in some schools, 
sustained solely fey funds received from the State, the 
school is opened with prayer, or the solemn reading 
of the Scriptures, or both ; and atone school, at least, 
the children belonging to different denominations, 
have been required to recite the catechisms of their 
respective churches. 

5. Where either the religious or the civil training 
would suffer from such combined action, it would be 
unwise and inexpedient, for the party likely to suffer, 
to unite its efforts with the other. 

Should the State, for example, so conduct her system 
of public instruction, as to leave out altogether the 



15 

religious element, or should she permit erroneous doc- 
trines to be inculcated in the State schools, either by 
the teachers or by the introduction of improper books; 
then it would be the duty of the Church to see that 
other and better provision is made for the instruction 
of those, over whose spiritual welfare she is called, in 
the providence of God, to watch. This she can do, 
either by establishing schools under the direct control 
of her church courts, or other church authorities, or 
by encouraging individual members of the church to 
establish such schools as the Church may need ; and 
to which, with a good eonscienc 
countenance. Either plan the Church may la 
adopt. 

As to what is the wisest or best plan ; this is another 
and distinct question from one respecting the lawful- 
ness of a given plan. Hence, while we would make 
no objection to the establishment of Parochial schools, 
by those who think that the object of their establish- 
ment cannot be so well attained in any other way ; 
we prefer the plan of encouraging individual members 
of the church to engage in this work, upon their own 
responsibility, and to carry it on under the patronage, 
but not under the control, of our church courts. 

On thee!- 'i • nch in the schools 

under her a\ inmxjtm . or ineidcato 

views, as to ci ■ : li rariaiu < ith those en- 

tertained b\ ; . tlio] . and contrary to the 

fundamental laws of the land, it would be the duty 
of the State to withdraw its countenance from all such 
schools. Take the case of Sardinia. Would it be 
the part of wisdom, or consistent with duty, for that 
government to surrender to the Jesuits, or other emis- 



16 

s-aries of the Pope, the instruction of the youth of 
that land ? The State authorities entertaining liberal 
views ; the Jesuits and their associates inculcating 
blind submission to authority, and interfering as far 
as they dare in civil matters, with the view of 
bringing every thing into subjection to the ecclesias- 
tical power. Would, it be wise in France to confide 
all the instruction of her children to the Roman Cath- 
olic church ; the head of which is intriguing at this 
very moment to subvert the rights of the French peo- 
ple with respect to marriage, under the pretence of 
guarding the rights of the church ? In cases like 
these, it is the duty of the civil government to pro- 
vide for the youth under its care suitable schools, in 
which they would be properly instructed in all mat- 
ters pertaining to the ordinary affairs of life ; and 
also in their duties as moral and accountable beings. 

6. A union of the civil and religious training can 
be best secured, neither by the State, nor by the Church,, 
assuming the sole control of the public schools ; but 
by committing the whole matter of public education 
to the care of trust-worthy persons holding the two- 
fold relation of citizens of the State and of members 
of the Church ; and who should be independent to 
some extent, at least, both of the Church and State. 

By a course of this kind, the State could secure 
every thing desirable for the State ; and at the same 
time aid the several religious denominations in the 
attainment of their important aims. 

The trustees of the schools being in some instances 
selected from several different denominations, and in 
others all selected from a single denomination, they 
would modify the cause of religious teaching to meet 



17 

the views of those whom the trustees represent ; and 
thus enable the youth in the various institutions to 
acquire the religious culture which the parents would 
prefer for their children, or with which they would 
be content ; satisfied that, all things considered, it 
was the best they could reasonably expect to be given 
at school. Upon no plan whatever could every child 
attend just such a school as its parents or guardians 
could desire, but on the plan suggested, the religious 
training, in each given case, would be attended to, as 
far as practicable ; while, at the same time, the children 
are acquiring the knowledge requisite to make them 
wholesome members of civil society. 

For the common school in any given district, let 
the people resident in that district select a sufficient 
number of suitable persons to act for them : and let 
the persons so chosen prescribe the course of instruc- 
tion in the common school ; and direct what religious 
exercises and teaching shall take place in the school. 
As the condition of its aid in maintaining the school, 
the State should merely require, that the teachers be 
competent, and that no children be excluded from the 
privileges of the school, on account of their own re- 
ligious sentiments, or those of their parents. If the 
several churches are satisfied with the extent and 
character of the religious teaching, let them give their 
countenance to the school ; and in this way, without 
interference with the rights of conscience, and without 
any direct joint action, both the State and the Church 
may aid in that all important work of training the 
vouth of our land. 

Where in any given district there is a decided as- 
cendency in number of any particular denomination, 



18 

there might be some disposition to push the religious 
teaching to an extent, that would be annoying to the 
minds of the few who do not agree with the majority 
in their religious belief. Yet on the whole it would 
be better to run the risk of this being done occasion- 
ally, than to encounter all the mischief that must in- 
evitably result from the entire neglect of religious in- 
struction, in our common schools., Should a case of 
the kind supposed now and then occur, it would be a 
serious question as to whether the children of the 
minority should forego the advantages of the school in 
other respects, rather than run the risk of having 
their religious opinions modified or wholly changed ; 
and it would be a question which the parents must 
decide for their children. 

To our apprehension, it would be better in some 
cases, for the children to be kept from the common 
school, than to subject them, on the one hand, to the 
danger of unsound religious teaching ; or to expose 
them, on the other, to the evil of being practically 
taught, that religion has nothing to do with the ordi- 
nary affairs of life. It is the interest of the State as 
well as the interest of the Church, that the vouth 
should be taught to believe and feel, that the highest 
of all duties, is to love and fear God : }^et, in laying- 
down principles to guide a community in matters of 
education, it would be impossible for any man, or set 
of men, to devise a scheme that would be free from 
all objection. Our aim, therefore, must be to adopt a 
system that shall combine in itself the greatest amount 
of good to the entire community, with the least degree 
of interference with individual rights. 

Mosl <>r the remarks under this head have been 



19 

made in reference to a state of things in which it was 

supposed, that there might be a concurrent action on 
the part of the State with the Church, without any 
direct union or co-operation of the two. Where no 
such action can be had, it is obviously the duty of the 
State, and of the Church, to pursue each its separate 
course, with all possible energy and discretion. 

In regard to institutions of a higher order, the 
separate aims of the State and of the Church, can be 
readily attained, by adopting the course suggested, 
and which, in fact, is the very plan that has been in 
operation, in this country almost from its first settle- 
ment. The State has authorized the establishment 
of Colleges, and placed them under the control of men 
enjoying the confidence of the communities in w r hich 
they reside, and committed to these men and their 
successors the entire direction of affairs, subject only 
to such restrictions as may be necessary to prevent 
an abuse of their trust. And the practical result has 
been, that the various religious denominations have 
acquired more or less of a controlling influence over 
these institutions, through the trustees, who in the 
first instance were appointed at the suggestion, and 
upon the petition of those w r ho applied for the charters. 
In some cases the control is direct, in others indirect. 
For reasons given in a previous letter, I deem the 
indirect supervision of the Church better than the 
direct, wdiether respect be had to the church or to the 
college. 

Such has been the liberality of the State in grant- 
ing charters for colleges, that no body of men capable 
of sustaining one has failed to obtain the requisite 
authority to do so : and so numerous are the colleges 



20 

and universities, and of such diversified character are 
they as to the religious sentiments taught in them, 
ithat no one can well be at a loss to find an institution, 
in accordance with his views of what a college should 
be. 

Our colleges may be classed under three heads. 

1. Colleges, under the direct control of the State 
'authorities. 

2. Colleges, under the direct control of some eccle- 
siastical body. 

3. Colleges not under the direct control of either 
State or Church. 

This 3d class may be sub-divided into two. 

1st. Colleges whose trustees belong to one denomi- 
nation, and which were established and sustained by 
their friends and patrons, with a special reference to 
the instruction of the youth of that denomination. 

2d. Colleges whose trustees were at the first chosen 
from different denominations, and with the avowed 
design of teaching only those religious tenets, held in 
common by the different denominations united in sus- 
taining said colleges. 

So far as religious teaching is concerned, the first 
of these can meet all the reasonable demands of those 
who are the zealous advocates of church colleges ; and 
.the second can do all that the friends of the State 
colleges could ask. And as there is happily among 
Us no difference of opinion as to the best form of civil 
government, and as to the rights of conscience, either 
of them could impart all the instruction which it is 
the duty of the State to furnish. 

If this be so, these two subdivisions of colleges may 
well be regarded as all-sufficient for the purpose of 



21 

Church and State : the first being adapted more folly 
to the wants of the Church, and the second to the 
wants of the State. 

In most of our State Colleges, provision is now 
made, to some extent, for the religious instruction of 
the students 5 and, perhaps, sufficiently so to meet the 
wants of the State. But this arrangement is liable 
to two objections c 

1st. That the character of the instruction given is 
constantly liable to change ; and 

2d. The State, for the time being, allies herself to 
one class of religionists to the exclusion of the 
others ; and just so far as she does this, she may be 
said to interfere with the rights of conscience ; and 
were there no other colleges but those under the con- 
trol of the State, this would be a very serious objection 
to them ; and, as things are, it is not without weight. 
State institutions supported, to a great extent, by funds 
received from the State are able to carry on a compe- 
tition, that in many cases must prove ruinous to other 
colleges ; and just so far as this is done, it prevents 
the different religious denominations from furnishing 
to the youth in their churches the moral and mental 
training they would wish them to have. Whereas, if 
all our colleges were independent, to some extent, of 
both Church and State, as all our older colleges are, 
and yet under the patronage of one or more religious 
denominations, the youths belonging to the different 
sects could be suited with just that kind of training 
which is deemed best for them by their parents. At 
the same time, the State would not be liable to the 
charge of favouring particular sects, or of interfering 
with the rights of conscience ; and yet her duty in 



00 



the matter of education would be discharged, and her 
aim attained in the way least exceptionable. As be- 
fore remarked, no plan can secure precisely the same 
advantages to every individual. A school-house and 
a college cannot he placed next door to every man's 
dwelling : nor can a court-house, nor can a church. 
All we can hope to effect is to secure the greatest amount 
of good for the coaimunity as a whole, with the least 
possible interference with the rights of the individuals 
composing that community. 

This should be the aim of the State, and this is the 
true expression of her relation to our schools and 
colleges. 

As to the Church, it is the duty of each branch of 
it to have a special watch over the youth belonging 
to that branch ; but in making provision for the re- 
ligious training of its own children, it should not be 
regardless of the best interests of those not under its 
immediate care. On the contrarv, each branch of 
the Church, in all its arrangements should seek to 
promote the best good of the whole community. All 
therefore that any branch of the Church should de- 
mand of our schools and colleges is, that proper pro- 
vision be made for the union of so much religious 
teaching with instruction in secular things, as will 
effectually aid said church in accomplishing her 
schemes for the complete religious training of her 
youth, and tend to promote the sound doctrinal in- 
structions of all other young persons, who can be 
brought within the reach of these schools and col- 
leges. 

The true relation, then, of the Church to our schools 
and colleges, is not to govern them ; but to foster and 



c 



23 



encourage them, in their efforts to promote intelligence 

and piety among- the youth of our land. 

Should the schools and colleges already established 
fail to do this, then let the Church withdraw her 
countenance from them, and give it to others that 
will. If, in given cases, she cannot secure the estab- 
lishment of such schools and colleges, without taking 
the direct oversight of them, let her do this, not as 
being the best plan, nor as indicative of the true re- 
lation of the Church to schools and colleges in a 
normal state of things, but as expedient in a given 
emergency. 

Were it at this day an altogether open question as 
to the best mode of conducting our schools and col- 
leges, I believe it would be wise to organize them all 
in accordance with the views given above. But as in 
most, if not in all the States of our Union, provision 
is made for the support of common schools, by the 
State, it becomes a practical question, what course 
should the Protestant churches pursue in regard to 
these State schools ? In reply to this question, I 
should say, that so long as in these common schools, 
the Bible is reverently read ; and the instruction given 
in them, on moral and religious subjects is sound and 
Scriptural, it would be wise for the churches to en- 
courage these schools, and not give them up entirely 
to the control of those who care nothing for religion. 

We are not disposed to favour the views of the Bo- 
manists, or of those Protestants who agree with them 
in opinion, that the Church should have the whole 
direction of the education of our youth ; and that, 
too, in matters purely secular, as well as on the sub- 
ject of religion. Nor are we disposed to interfere 



24 

with the present common school arrangements of the 
several States, where the schools are properly con- 
ducted, or even to withdraw from all connexion with 
them, so long as we can exert a wholesome influence 
over them. 

Very respectfully, yours, 

JOHN MACLEAN, 



25 



CHEAP SCHOLARSHIP ENDOWMENTS FOB 

COLLEGES. 

The extension of the means of education, so as to 
place them fairly within the reach of the largest pos- 
sible proportion of our population, is of course a very 
great desideratum ; and one towards which all the 
characteristics of our age and our country are point- 
ing, not only as a desideratum, but a necessity. It 
may, indeed, be questioned, whether more is not ex- 
pected from popular education, especially if religion 
is to be eliminated from its primary stages, than will 
be realized. But this is not our present question. 

While therefore, we earnestly desire the extension 
of education, or in other words, the cheapening of 
education to the poor, we yet hold it to be in the last 
degree important, that we should not thereby deteri- 
orate its quality. If the alternative were to carry 
the culture of those who can afford to purchase it, to 
a higher point on the one hand, or to diffuse a lower 
range of education equally among a greater number, 
on the other, a strong plea might be made in favour of 
the latter course. But if the real alternative be to 
depreciate the standard of our higher education for 
all classes alike, in order to bring it equally within 
the reach of all, — if, in other words, the tendency of 
our measures is to drag down the level of our collegiate 
training, already far too low for our true interests, 
then we cannot hesitate to regard the result as an evil 
on the whole. And in expressing this conviction, wo 

4 



26 

suppose ourselves to be speaking the common senti- 
ment of every enlightened friend of education and of 
man, in the land. This is the great objection to the 
undue multiplication of colleges. More men might 
thereby receive a so called collegiate education ; but 
no man can doubt, that the deterioration consequent 
upon this extension of its superficial area, would be a 
great evil to the scholarship of the whole country. 
While every thing is done that can be done wisely, 
to extend education among the masses of the people, 
let us never cease to labour with equal zeal, to lift up 
the standard of our higher education, for the common 
benefit of all. Let us be care|jil not to array in 
antagonism, interests that should ever run parallel. 
There is no reason why our charity to the poor, should 
take the form of injustice to the rich, or rather of in- 
jury to the whole. 

Now it seems to us, that some of the current schemes 
of education, and among them that for endowing col- 
leges by means of cheap scholarships, not only are in 
danger of working that result, but that the result is 
inevitably involved in the plan. We believe the suc- 
cess of the scheme to be the certain precursor of a 
depreciation in the standard of our collegiate train- 
ing ; and as such to be an evil and not a good in the 
end. Let the grounds of this apprehension be carefully 
and candidly weighed ; and if they are in error, let 
that error be pointed out with equal candor. 

1. The first ground, then, on which we question 
the wisdom of this method of endowment is, that it 
seems to us to involve a serious and inevitable deteri- 
oration of the standard of our college scholarship. 

Every one familiar with the practical working of a 



21 

college, knows that constant and thorough recitations 
are indispensable to its efficiency. Every good teach- 
er knows by experience, that there are two conditions 
essential to the successful working of the method ; 
viz : 1, That the mind of the teacher should be im- 
bued with that quickening, energizing, developing 
power, which belongs in full measure only to men of 
a higher order of qualification, — men of clear, strong, 
gifted, well-trained, well-informed mind ; and 2d, That 
the mind of the teacher so gifted, so trained and 
furnished, and so alive with energizing power, should 
be brought into constant and living contact with the 
minds of his pupils. We are constantly seeing cases, 
where the teacher fails as a teacher, for the want of 
intellectual force, and inspiring enthusiasm, quite as 
much as for the want of ripe and thorough scholar- 
ship. Few men comparatively seem to have those 
personal qualities, which go to make up the evidence 
of a vocation to teach. And then, whatever a man's 
qualifications may be, they will be in a great measure 
unfruitful, without constant and close contact with 
the pupil. This latter truth establishes a necessary 
relation between the number of teachers and students, 
in all effective college training. This point has not 
received in this country the attention it deserves. A 
vague impression prevails among us, that a fixed corps 
of teachers must be maintained, and then an almost 
indefinite number of students can be taught, without 
much additional expense. This impression, we think, 
underlies the endowment scheme we are discussing. 
When we have urged upon its advocates, that the 
amount of these scholarships is utterly inadequate to 
the proper instruction of so many students, as they 



28 

call for, we have uniformly received for answer : First, 
that many of the scholarships will fail to be filled ; 
and thus the number of students will in reality be 
much less than the number of scholarships ; — and 
secondly, that the sum fixed for the endowment, will 
enable them to support a full corps of teachers, and 
then they can educate as many as may come. 

Our reply is, that if the first of these allegations 
foe true, the morality of the inducement, by which 
;tfee money is procured, is thereby set in a very ques- 
tionable light. And besides, it is a question whether 
(those who take scholarships mainly because they are 
rcheap, or in other words, because they are a profita- 
ble investment, are likely to be deprived of their 
promised profits, by allowing them in general to go 
foy default. And if any one should rejoin to this 
reasoning, that the money is given, not as a good in- 
vestment, but as a charitable donation to the cause of 
education, we have only to say, let them try the ex- 
periment of raising fifty or a hundred thousand dollars 
on that ground, and they will at once settle the ques- 
tion. 

But our main object is with the other allegation. 
And our reply to that, is, that it is all a mistake. 
There is no fixed corps of instructors, for an indefinite 
number of students. We maintain on the ground of 
experience, that for every increase of students, above 
a certain and very limited number, there must be a 
corresponding increase of Professors ; or the instruc- 
tion will become at once comparatively inefficient and 
fruitless. To imagine otherwise, we are perfectly 
persuaded, is to practice an illusion on ourselves ; and 
rto represent otherwise to the donors,, is to give pledges, 



*29 

that no ability and no faithfulness, will enable us to 
redeem. 

We repeat that the method of instruction mainly 
relied upon in all the colleges in the land, supposes a 
fixed numerical ratio between the professors and the 
students. For every increase of the one, there must be 
a corresponding increase of the other. The propor- 
tion most favorable to effective teaching, has not yet 
been carefully or finally determined. In Germany 
where the system is pushed to its highest efficiencj' in 
the gymnasium, (answering to our American Colleges,) 
the average proportion is about one teacher to every 
ten pupils. In our own country, the proportion, or 
rather disproportion, is much greater than this. In 
our best furnished institutions, it would probably 
average about one to twenty. In any computation 
we are able to make, in the case of institutions en- 
dowed by scholarships, ranging as they do from 25 
dollars for an individual, to $100 for a family, the 
disproportion can hardly be less than one teacher to 
forty or fifty pupils. And this, we maintain, experi- 
ence has shown, to be wholly insufficient. There is 
no first class, or even second class institution in the 
world, so far as we know, where this, or any thing 
like this disproportion obtains. 

Much may be done by dividing the classes into sec- 
tions for drill ; but it is impossible for four or five men 
having the responsibility of sustaining as many separ- 
ate departments on a creditable level, to go through 
the daily drudgery of thorough drilling in each of 
those departments on a scale like this. The thing is 
physically impossible. 

There are but tw r o alternatives. The one is to go 



30 

on with inefficient recitations, conducted by a few 
able men, crippled by their fewness ; the other is to 
increase their corps of teachers, by dismissing them, and 
securing in their place, a greater number of inferior, 
and therefore cheaper men. Either alternative, it 
seems to us, will insure the result we have stated. 

An endowment of $100,000 in the form of scholar- 
ships of $100 each, would give a thousand students. 
If only one out of five of these scholarships should 
be filled at one time, it would give the institution 200 
students. If every dollar of the endowment were 
collected and safely invested, it would yield less than 
half the income, annually expended in the instruction 
of that number of students, in any first class college 
in the land. To suppose that our collegiate education 
can be cheapened to that extent, without deteriora- 
tion, is to charge all our older colleges, with a degree 
of extortion, not many removes from swindling. 

A second general ground of objection to the scheme 
we are discussing is, that it is likely to interfere inju- 
riously with the prosperity of other colleges. The 
fundamental feature of this mode of endowment, is, 
that it aims to draw students to its halls, by under- 
bidding the common rates of tuition. The great in- 
ducement it holds out to purchase its scholarships, is, 
not that its teaching is better, but that it costs less 
than half the amount of tuition, charged in other in- 
stitutions. If it be true that the ordinary rates of 
college education are double what they should be, 
this, of course, is righteous and fair. But if it be 
founded in error, the result cannot fail to be evil 
wherever its influence is felt. 

But farther, it is well known that while local and 



31 

personal preferences, and still more the prospect of a 
better education, may determine the choice of a col- 
lege in the majority of cases, yet there are in every 
community, those who will feel the force of eccnomi- 
cal motives, over this class of inducements. It may 
be regarded as certain, therefore, that a portion of the 
students destined for other institutions, will be drawn 
oif by the lure of a cheaper education. And this in 
its turn cannot fail to curtail to some extent, the re- 
sources, and so cripple the strength of such institu- 
tions. If only a few of their students should be with- 
drawn by this means, it may compel them to reduce 
their corps of instructors, and so deteriorate the thor- 
oughness of their teaching. It is the liability to this 
disastrous result, which gives other institutions and 
the friends of a higher education, the right of remon- 
strance ; and even makes it their duty to meddle with 
the new experiment, because it first and inevitably 
meddles with them. 

3. It strikes us that this scheme of endowment will 
operate injuriously on our preparatory schools and 
academies. 

We take for granted, that no good classical school 
in the land, can afford to teach for the rates proposed 
in these endowment-scholarships. And besides, there 
will always be a temptation to hurry boys from the 
academy, and crowd them into college, because their 
parents or other friends hold scholarships there, which 
release them from any farther expense for tuition. 
The difficulty is already pressing on our best teachers, 
of retaining their students long enough, to give them 
any thing like a thorough drilling in the elements of 
Classical and English studies. This propensity can 



?>2 



only be held in check, by colleges keeping up their 
standard of requirement, and insisting as an absolute 
condition of admission to their classes, that every stu- 
dent shall be thoroughly prepared. It is a disgrace 
to our higher education, that these elementary branch- 
es are so imperfectly mastered, and that our classical 
and philosophical attainments so commonly stand 
through life, just where they are left at college, 
chiefly for want of sufficient familiarity with the gram- 
mar and construction of the classic tongues, and the 
elements of science, to make their farther prosecution 
pleasant. Now, it seems to us to be in the last de- 
gree unwise, to stimulate this undue haste to enter 
college, by an inducement in the shape of cheap schol- 
arships ; and to increase the difficulty and the delicacy 
of holding it in check, on the part of the faculty, by 
placing in the hands of parents and guardians, a pe- 
cuniary obligation for the tuition applied for. No one 
who has any experience in such cases, we think, can 
doubt, that it will throw a powerful make-weight in 
favour of receiving all merely doubtful cases ; while the 
interests of education, and the highest influence and 
usefulness of the learned professions, make it eminent- 
ly desirable, that the doubt in such cases should be 
given on the other side. 

4. We submit, that the principle appealed to in 
procuring subscriptions to these endowments, renders 
it probable — and we are satisfied from observation the 
fact will turn out to be so, — that young men will be 
sent to college, on the strength of these scholarships, 
and ultimately get into the learned professions, who 
have not only no suitable training, but no adequate 
intellectual gifts or moral fitness, for professional life. 



3 



9 



Whatever training and mental furniture they may 
receive, may be a personal benefit to them ; but if it 
should have the effect of crowding into the institu- 
tion, a mass of students, whom the best corps of in- 
structors in the land, could not make scholars of a 
high order, and finally of flooding the country with 
them, as ministers, physicians, lawyers, and legisla- 
tors, no personal benefits to them, could ever atone 
for the resulting evils. 

Must we then abandon the scheme of reducing the 
cost of education to the poorer classes ? By no means. 
The drift of our argument, if it has any validity, goes to 
show, that this object cannot be accomplished, by 
merely reducing the price of tuition. It may be fair- 
ly assumed, that the cost of college teaching, settled 
by a long experience, cannot be tampered with with- 
out damage ; unless some method can be devised, like 
those in mechanics, which cheapen the 2:>ower, or 
shorten the process by which the work is done. 

There still remain, however, the old long tried me- 
thods, which, for aught that appears, are capable of 
indefinite expansion, and are therefore both safe and 
sufficient. 

1. Our Collegiate Institutions may be endowed, like 
our Theological Seminaries, so as to furnish gratuitous 
instruction to all who are qualified to receive it ; or 
they may be partially endowed, so as to bring the cost 
of an education within the reach of all classes alike, 
as in Scotland and in Europe generally. 

2. Scholarships may be founded on a scale of suffi- 
cient liberality, to furnish ample facilities for the high- 
est possible training ; and these scholarships may easi- 
ly be prevented froiu dragging down the standard of 

5 



34 

our collegiate education, and even made the instru- 
ment of raising it still higher, and of stimulating the 
vigorous and healthy emulation of academies and pre- 
paratory schools, by throwing these scholarships open 
to competition, and bestowing their avails as a reward 
of faithful and successful study. It may well be made 
a question, whether it is wise in any case, to vest the 
ownership of scholarships in the hands of donors. It 
can hardly fail to give them both a moral and a pe- 
cuniary influence in the settlement of questions, which 
ought to be exclusively determined on other grounds, 
and by other parties. 

3. And finally. The principle on which our Board 
of Education was originally founded, and until recent- 
ly administered, exemplifies still another, and on some 
accounts, we think, a more purely Christian mode of 
meeting the case ; allowing, as it does, a more direct 
and personal administration of the Christian charities 
of the benevolent donor, in the payment of the educa- 
tional expenses of the receiver. There is no sufficient 
reason apparent to us, why this principle should not 
be applied on a wider scale, instead of confining it ex- 
clusively to the case of ministerial education : and this, 
we are glad to say, has actually been done by our 
Board of Education, in the case of young men prepa- 
ring to become professional teachers. But this is 
aside from our present object ; which is, not to discuss 
the whole question of College Endowments, but to 
state the grounds of our apprehensions, in regard to 
the recent method of Endowment by means of Cheap 
Scholarships. 

M. B. HOPE. 

Princeton, N. J., Aug. 12, 1853. 






35 



POSTSCRIPT. 

The above letter was not published, when the re- 
printing of the other letters was begun : and for this 
reason no reference is made to it upon the title page 
of the pamphlet. As it discusses a kindred subject 
of great moment to the interests of our Colleges, I 
gladly avail myself of the opportunity to append it 
to the letters written by Dr. Brown and myself. 

J. M. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



019 598 289 2 % 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



019 598 289 2 # 



